Talk:Summoning Charm
Sections I want all the sections to be in this page along with every other spell! Matthew Dale 02:57, January 24, 2010 (UTC) Summoning Objects Can all objects be summoned? Because in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, ''Harry is seen summoning Neville's wand. But if wands can be summoned, how come Horcruxes can't be. It's not like there's a rule against summoning magical objects, is there? Dement0r 18:58, June 28, 2011 (UTC)'' :Horcruxes most likely have a spell or charm put on them so that they cannot be summoned by the Accio spell.Piper13 01:19, November 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, it seems clear that certain types of objects either are or can be protected against summoning - the charm doesn't work on the Cloak of Invisibility either. ProfessorTofty 01:25, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Er, what does it mean in latin The larger the object and the farther away it is, the stronger the summoning charm needs to be. But i wonder, with a strong enough charm, could you summon people? Voldemort could easily get hold of Harry and Hermione could more easily find her parents, I'm sure there are many other possibilities aswell. 01:18, January 15, 2012 (UTC)Ariana Dumbledore 21st century Does Wonderbook mention the 21st century? This would indicate that the game is set after 2000, wouldn´t it?--Rodolphus (talk) 14:35, November 17, 2012 (UTC) Pronunciation I was reading a HP fanfiction and this spell came up so I came here to look how to say it right and I looked up some more on this spell. Since it's an actual Latin word I was wondering if since the UK audio book and games and the US audio book use different ways of pronunciation along with the Anglo-Catholic pronunciation being different from them should we add the other pronunciations to go with the movie version?Kyuu19 (talk) 04:49, May 21, 2014 (UTC) Horcruxes The article states: Horcrux can nullify the effect of the charm no matter how clear the caster thinks of its. Source? I always got the impression that additional charms need to be placed on Horcruxes to prevent summoning, just like on any other object. My impression is supported by Dumbledore letting Harry try to summon it in the cave in HBP. (He wouldn't have let him try if this was generally impossible. Both of them did not know that the true Horcrux was not there anymore.) Furthermore, Griphook states in DH part 1 that Summoning charms do not work in Gringotts in general when Hermione tries to summon the cup. --Rodolphus (talk) 12:06, December 23, 2016 (UTC) Bumping.--Rodolphus (talk) 16:34, June 23, 2017 (UTC) : I don't think there is something that proves the Summoning Charm cannot summon Horcruxes. Dumbledore would have known whether Horcruxes cannot be summoned. Hermione also read up about Horcruxes and even she tried to summon the locket in . She then says it would not work when their are counter-enchantments on them. : They do try to summon the diadem in the Room of Requirement and nothing happened, but that may be because of counter-enchantments. The Gringotts one you mentioned. I think the line needs to either be rephrased or removed. -- Kates39 (talk) 18:27, June 23, 2017 (UTC) : Summoning Living Objects Didn't harry use it on Hagrid? :He tried. It didn't work. Oerk (talk) 02:15, September 17, 2019 (UTC) ::But Newt did use it on his Niffler in so... --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:36, September 17, 2019 (UTC) That's because he summoned the gold he was carrying. Harry didn't say "Accio Hagrid's coat" Oerk (talk) 04:34, September 17, 2019 (UTC) :That would be a fine explanation if the screenplay didn't have the lines "NEWT Accio Niffler!" and "NEWT (of the Niffler) Where is he? Ah, Accio Niffler." in . :What is more bothersome is that Rowling herself said for that accio couldn't be used on living creatures here: : "3. Why couldn’t Newt use ‘Accio’ to retrieve all his beasts? : ‘Accio’ only works on inanimate objects. While people or creatures may be indirectly moved by ‘Accio-ing’ objects that they are wearing or holding, this carries all kinds of risks because of the likelihood of injury to the person or beast attached to an object travelling at close to the speed of light." :Yet somehow by the time we reach this Niffler is Accio-able. Maybe they just have different magical laws in France ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:07, September 17, 2019 (UTC) : Interesting. But I suppose the niffler always have some shiny objects in his pouch which makes it accioable. That's the close explanation Rowling could give for this inconsistency. [[User:Newt Strike| '''Newt Strike ]][[User talk:Newt Strike| ' Talk ']] 05:31, September 17, 2019 (UTC) So about this speed of light nonsense...doesn't the source material directly disprove that? If Accio worked at the speed of light (which is 186,282 miles per second or 299,792 kilometers per second), it wouldn't have taken Harry's Firebolt so long to reach him in Goblet of Fire, it would have been there nigh-instantaneously from his perspective, but it took up to a full minute in the film, perhaps 30 seconds after it broke free of Harry's trunk. Plus, there are instances of people (including regular Muggles) dodging/ducking underneath Accio'd objects in the books and films. If it moved at the speed of light, no one would be able to react to it. Shouldn't we just attribute this "speed of light" nonsense to a Death of the Author moment? The source material, and even the newest films, directly contradict this information, so I think it should be stricken from the wiki. (A Stoned Orc, 01:56, February 3, 2020)